DISCLAIMER: THE POSTING OF STORIES, COMMENTARIES, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS AND LINKS (EMBEDDED OR OTHERWISE) ON THIS SITE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, NECESSARILY EXPRESS OR SUGGEST ENDORSEMENT OR SUPPORT OF ANY OF SUCH POSTED MATERIAL OR PARTS THEREIN.

Too right. About one, maybe two States sittings left and some members will likely have already sloped off to carry on doing nothing in sunnier climbs.

Let us hope that Monty at least helps Mike Higgins hold our spin-doctor nurtured buffoons to account. And boys, can we have a proposition lodged demanding a clear regime is set out for the public to see how the revelations from the COI will be dealt with?

No guarantee that it will come out on this date but let us hope that it does. Its no secret that just before the holidays is a perfect time to deliver this report if one wants to be cynical. Holidays. Summer. States just about done for the summer. Time for PR training to be finished. Then we can sit back and listen to "Lessons have been learnt" from our numpty leaders

July 4th - with continuation dates on July 5th and 6thJuly 18th - with continuation dates on July 19th and 20th

The Report should dominate one of the two sittings, preferably the second one.

So the States will have the shock and immediate reaction at that first sitting, and the opportunity for a full-on debate, perhaps an in-committee debate at the second sitting. (see footnote to this post)

Second

We must prepare.

Monty and Sam and maybe some others like Jackie Hilton and the independent – minded States members (there are some) would go with this too, should ask what the plans are to deal properly with the report.

Meanwhile they should discuss this first with Carrie, Neil Rico and others. What is the best way to deal with what is going to be a doorstopper of a report, I guess.

And develop an agreed position to take.

Third, some questions come to my mind.

a) will the Panel present their report in public, in Jersey?

b) what format will this take? Will it be a genuine exchange of views? Who will moderate the discussion - TIP the moderator must be independent, (not from the island) experienced, non-conflicted, fair and (probably) very firm. Borrow someone from the national Inquiry??

Oh and yes this will cost money - just like hiring spin doctors does. Only the purpose of having a good person moderating is to create good debate and learning, not to “present” anything.

What else do folk here think we need to do? What other aspects are there around what should happen after the publication?

NOTE An In Committee debate is a debate where the normal rules do not apply. There is no motion to vote on, and it offers the opportunity to explore a theme. The debate can be structured into sections. members may speak more than once - perhaps once or twice in each section. Different members may "lead" on each section.

Well that is all theoretically possible - we have to obtain such a useful debate and not a useless exercise in trotting out pre-existing positions.

Further to my previous post: July 3rd is enough time after the election to avoid a) the election coverage itself and b) the immediate aftermath of the election, new Ministers being appointed, new announcements on Brexit, coalitions being formed etc.

An earlier date would have been worse.

You see I am unconvinced that they are trying to bury anything. I am not sure they are "trying" to do anything at all.

However this late date DOES give them time to re-create the website before publication and tell us all exactly how all the relevant information, of whatever kind, is going to be preserved, security assured, its user-friendliness to be sorted, and all this done properly and transparently.

When one reads the previous update from the COI published in March HERE you could be forgiven for believing that (as posted in this latest update) Quote (from both updates) "Arrangements for the launch of the report will be published in due course" that we should have been told about the "Arrangements" in this update.

Full March update:

The Panel of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry on Thursday (9 March) released the following statement:

"The Panel has received new information as part of Phase 3 of its work, in respect of recommendations for the future of Jersey's childcare system.

"The Panel has advised the States of Jersey that there will be a delay to the publication of the report pending examination of the new information as to whether it affects the recommendations we intend to make.

"We do not anticipate extensive delays. We will announce the date of the report's publication in due course and advise on the arrangements that will be in place for its launch."

It seems unlikely that Carrie and / or the victims put forward ideas " in respect of recommendations for the future of Jersey's childcare system "

This would then have obviously have had to come from Government, which makes me uneasy, that they were allowed to interrupt the findings so late after they had concluded. Could it be that the Government with the help of spin doctors were allowed to add sugar to the pill ?

It was my understanding that interference by States departments or Government would not be allowed before publication ?

In plain site, like not putting ex Health and Social Service's ( including child care by government ) on the stand. The executive now retired with a £130,000 golden hand shake and index linked pension. The man known as Mike Pollard.

When this report does eventually come out any chance of presenting some kind of composite video blog with comments from all the big players who have championed the victims cause for so long? I accept few would sit through hours of interviews.

But a say 30 minute video response with input from Graham Power, Lenny Harper, Stuart Syvret, Trevor/Shona Pitman, Daniel Wimberley and Mike Higgins could be both rivetting and might even end up being picked up by global media?

I think the couple of comments at 20:07 and 21:19 would like to say that the Ex-Health Minister who first publicly revealed Jersey's child abuse disaster is a "non-person" and that no one is interested in anything he has to say and that you should not be bothered to interview him.

Just what a well known Paedo-Toll would say. But I'm sure it is someone else.(or will claim to be)

I don't think that nobody is interested in what former Senator Syvret says. His views are most relevant. What I think puts people off is the language used so often in on line comments. Secondly that whether he or others are right most believe that he should have given his important evidence no matter what. The comment stating that much of the most relevant and damaging evidence will be ruled as category 3 is also probably right. I hope not but it is my gut feeling.

The whole question about what is or is not within the Terms of Reference was the subject of my first two letters to the COI - now helpfully disappeared from the website. Their reply to my first letter was a disgrace, and I told them so. There was no formal reply to the second.

However, it is plain that the matters mentioned above ARE within the Terms of Reference.

rule of law - absence of in Jersey.

TOR 4 covers this: "Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes."

The absence of the Rule of Law, if it exists, sould obviously impact on all these aspects.

TOR 9 says

"Review the actions of . . . " sorry I cannot copy the TOR from the COI website any more. But here is the address:

structural problems like for instance the lack of an independent prosecution function, and the evident conflict of interest with the AG being Prosecutor and the States Legal Advisor also fall within these two TOR.

There was a lengthy battle over the TOR and these two got through. For full details of where the TOR as approved by the States were still faulty see my first letter about them to the COI.

"Terms of Reference, as approved by the States of Jersey on 6th March 2013

The Committee of Inquiry (“the Committee”) is asked to do the following –

1. Establish the type and nature of children’s homes and fostering services in Jersey in the period under review, that is the post-war period, with a particular focus on the period after 1960. Consider (in general terms) why children were placed and maintained in these services.

2. Determine the organisation (including recruitment and supervision of staff), management, governance and culture of children’s homes and any other establishments caring for children, run by the States and in other non-States run establishments providing for children, where abuse has been alleged, in the period under review and consider whether these aspects of these establishments were adequate.

3. Examine the political and other oversight of children’s homes and fostering services and other establishments run by the States with a particular focus on oversight by the various Education Committees between 1960 and 1995, by the various Health and Social Services Committees between 1996 and 2005, and by ministerial government from 2006 to the current day.

4. Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes.

5. Establish a chronology of significant changes in childcare practice and policy during the period under review, with reference to Jersey and the UK in order to identify the social and professional norms under which the services in Jersey operated throughout the period under review.

6. Take into account the independent investigations and reports conducted in response to the concerns raised in 2007, and any relevant information that has come to light during the development and progression of the Redress Scheme.

7. Consider the experiences of those witnesses who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse, and hear from staff who worked in these services, together with any other relevant witnesses. It will be for the Committee to determine, by balancing the interests of justice and the public interest against the presumption of openness, whether, and to what extent, all or any of the evidence given to it should be given in private. The Committee, in accordance with Standing Order 147(2), will have the power to conduct hearings in private if the Chairman and members consider this to be appropriate.

8. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how, and to whom, they were reported. Establish whether systems existed to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing, whether these systems were adequate, and any failings they had.

"9. Review the actions of the agencies of the government, the justice system and politicians during the period under review, in particular when concerns came to light about child abuse and establish what, if any, lessons are to be learned.

10. Consider how the Education and Health and Social Services Departments dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took, whether these actions were in line with the policies and procedures of the day, and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

11. Establish whether, where abuse was suspected, it was reported to the appropriate bodies, including the States of Jersey Police; what action was taken by persons or entities including the police, and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day and whether those policies and procedures were adequate.

12. Determine whether the concerns in 2007 were sufficient to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train ‘Operation Rectangle’.

13. Establish the process by which files were submitted by the States of Jersey Police to the prosecuting authorities for consideration, and establish –• Whether those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a professional approach;• Whether the process was free from political or other interference at any level.

If, for these purposes, or as a result of evidence given under paragraph 7, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee, it would be of assistance that one or more of the prosecution files underpinning any prosecution decision may be examined in a manner to be determined by the Committee.

14. Set out what lessons can be learned for the current system of residential and foster care services in Jersey and for third party providers of services for children and young people in the Island.

15. Report on any other issues arising during the Inquiry considered to be relevant to the past safety of children in residential or foster care and other establishments run by the States, and whether these issues affect the safety of children in the future."

I don't intend putting in any time analysing the Inquiry's horrendous and pathetic website. As a user I agree with all of Daniel's comments.

And, as a user, I have found it particularly difficult to trace individual document submissions on the site. This is due both to a lack of cross-links from the timetable (which does have people's names) and the document file titles (which don't) and sometimes the late and erratic posting of documents.

However I did notice a feature which implied that the original intention was to link documents back to the timtable. Clearly, at the outset and before any documents were posted these links had to be specified in very general terms. The idea being, presumably, that the template would be filled out and appropriate links inserted as the inquiry progressed. However, this was never done and all the links (when they work)just bring you to the general transcripts page. Also the links themselves appeared to vanish as the Inquiry progressed. Day 62, 4 March 2015, is the last link.

So what does all this mean. Well (i) the site was mis-specified, (ii) people were not instructed in its proper use, (iii) nobody was keeping an eye on this aspect of it, (iv) everyone was happy with the initial pretty picture but nobody was committed to making it work, and/or (v) the more difficult it proved to interrogate the site the greater the freedom of the Inquiry to make a total mess of it, and wasn't that grand.

Here is a link to a picture of the hearings timetable for 5 days in August 2014 and you'll see what I mean (Blogger doesn't allow pictures in comments).

Can't say people who are critical of Stuart Syvret refusing to show evidence can be called paedo-trolls.There was a high expectation of him at the start of this Jersey Care Inquiry and hotly from the MSM because he has made so many claims over the decade against them it was time to see the evidence.It will be interesting to see how the Report sees Stuart Syvret because instead of walking away like another blogger suggested, all he's done is mock and pester the COI team on Twitter.

On the back of decades of cover up it is beyond you @9:46 how the Ex Health Minister could suspect that the "Independent" CoI could be yet another layer of cover up!

Not only do you expect Mr Syvret to become a political prisoner twice on behalf of his constituents, you also expect him to be a superman in the legal department too.

However while we are on that subject the upshot of the establishment trolling on previous threads indicates that Mr Syvret is surprisingly on the money for a mere carpenter and largely backed up by Advocate Philip Sinel:

Time Mr Syvret put up and shut up I think. His Twitter comments are most unpleasant towards the Inquiry Team and show a very bitter mind. He should have given his evidence in support of the very people who were brave enough to give theirs - the survivors.

Furthermore as he purports to such brilliant legal knowledge, he could surely have managed without the legal support he was denied which he feels was so unjustified.

Whilst the previous posting on VFC remains mysteriously down, we'll have to entertain ourselves here. I'm curious; comment of 30th April at 16:20 asserts of Stuart Syvret, '..as he purports to such brilliant legal knowledge...', ..etc. Could I ask the reader to point out where Stuart Syvret has claimed 'brilliant legal knowledge'? Going from memory I do recollect him having explained some of his legal concerns on his long neglected blog, but nothing a lay person couldn't ascertain with half an hour on the web & Wikipedia. I don't recollect him ever claiming brilliant legal knowledge.

I by way of contrast, whilst I forebear to claim 'brilliance', do know of what I speak. And in that regard Syvret was absolutely correct, as would be any person with ground to be seen as a core witness, in refusing to engage with what supposes to be a statutory public inquiry for as long as he or she was denied Article 6 compliant legal representation.

As marvelous as Wikipedia might be, its no substitute for professional guidance and more significantly representation.Especially when the system and individuals one exposed as having engaged in a decades long culture of child abuse cover up manage to secure probably about £20 million worth of legal representation for themselves.

When the report comes out, do not forget to loudly point out that the former Chief Executive of Health and Social Services, Mike Pollard, did not give evidence, at least not as far as I am aware. Happy to be corrected on that.

Why not? Why was he not subpoenaed?

His former deputy, Richard Jouault, did give evidence. Him and Tony Le Sueur (who also, I think, gave evidence) were then employed as some sort of evidence gatherers...

Anyone believing that the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry is in any way "independent" needs their head checking. Welcome to The Jersey Way.

As far as I recall, from having reading much of the important testimony myself, none of the key players refused to answer questions. For sure, many were evasive of 'couldn't remember' but none actually refused, to the best of my knowledge.

It would speak volumes if a key individual had been subpoenaed and then refused to answer questions.

The Inquiry had the power and ability to overcome any restrictions on anyone speaking out. Why did they not use those powers?

VFC, I left a comment earlier, in response to our 'learned friend' at 16:30, 30th April who accuses Stuart Syvret of having claimed 'legal brilliance'. But my comment does not appear to have got through. Was there some problem?

The comment I had to respond to said this, 'Furthermore as he purports to such brilliant legal knowledge, he could surely have managed without the legal support he was denied which he feels was so unjustified.'

As well has having a little fun in respect of my own legal knowledge, I was making the rather serious point that no lay person can be reasonably or legally expected to represent themselves. Especially against the multi-million pound might of entire departments of government, and the subsequent support given to child abusers and child abuse concealers.

It is a serious point.

Have you been prevented from posting such mild comments, amongst your current difficulties?

I pressed refresh all day and it stayed on 129 comments so assumed VFC had was out and taking a well deserved break. Then the whole post disappears OMG!! The blog is brilliant but that particular post and comment thread was absolutely excellent. Special thanks to RL (are you on twitter?) and Polo for some terrific contributions. Another comment included the word 'Syvreted' which had me in stitches. Awaiting the news of why this is down and hoping TPTB are not involved. All the best to VFC and thank you for all you do.

@ Anonymous: thanks to you for your kind comment.“Are you [am I] on Twitter?” – Heck! – Not likely!

Like others here, I can only speculate on VFC’s reason(s) for taking the thread down. I very much hope that he has not, in fact, been “Syvreted”. But if he has, then that’ll be all the more reason to stand firm and do what we can to keep as much as possible of the Inquiry’s published content “on-air”, accessible to readers worldwide, and to the world's press, for as long as is necessary.

Thank you for your support/contributions/understanding. You are correct, I have not been "got at." There are some redactions needed on the previous post and they have not been asked for by any of TPTB. It's a pretty complex issue that needs to be dealt with delicately.

Thank you to readers for being patient/understanding with this and hope to resolve the issues (some of them techie) very soon.

Gillian, you say 'Couldn't agree with you more Polo..'. Does that mean you too now see some serious doubts about the performance & quality of the COI? Like Polo when he/she says 'I wish the Inquiry itself was as thorough and as dedicated to justice for those who deserve it as you have been all along.'?

Apologies - I missed this question until just now. The comments that I agreed with Polo that this has been an excellent thread and posting and the debate has been worth reading. Your query about the Inquiry I would reply with the hope that the Inquiry will deliver an honest and robust report. I have a very open mind still and faith that this will be the case.

I will be the first to admit I was wrong and express my feelings if I am. Let us not forget that they were faced with numerous interferences and hurdles courtesy the SoJ.

We all "hope that the Inquiry will deliver an honest and robust report."

Honest and robust would be a start. Sadly it is beyond hope that the CoI report will be honest, robust and *complete*

I just cannot see how it cam be complete having constructively ignored the existence of about two dozen critical witnesses like the Chief Executive of Health and Social Services Department (Mike Pollard) who investigated the 2007 claims by the then Health Minister (Stuart Syvret) and pronounced:

-"....It is for me though, to send powerful messages to all of you who work in the Health and Social Services Department...."

-"Following my investigation into this matter, the Senator accepted that this had been handled correctly" .....[This was a total *lie* BTW]

-"The obvious, positive and unequivocal conclusion that we can all draw from this evidence is that the Child Protection and Children’s Services have no case to answer. The truth is – as if we did not know it – that these are highly respected, caring professionals who work in one of the most high risk sectors of public service.In addition to the investigations (referred to above) which Senator Syvret asked me to investigate, you will appreciate also that the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey have also asked me to investigate some allegations which were brought to their attention. What I expected to find in undertaking all of this work was that the vast majority of such allegations were groundless and could be easily rebutted. To be perfectly honest though, I did expect – because this is the way that the world usually turns – to find that one or two instances had not been handled as well as they could have been. What I actually found, without exception, was that every instance and every matter I looked into had been dealt with to the highest possible standard. Never before in my 30 years of practice have I found a service that has got it so right, so well and so often to such a high standard.I trust, therefore, that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children’s Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record. I will not take kindly to anyone who seeks to make mischief with these hard working staff on these matters." [this was a "powerful" *threat* to deter further whistle blowers]

How can the report be anywhere complete if the CoI chose to ignore or exclude such witnesses who took such active part in the 2007/2008 cover up????

While we are confident that *some* good will come of the final report- Given the schoolgirl errors, how can the CoI be seen as anything more than an eye wateringly expensive exercise in damage control?

Am I naive or not!! SS was the one that brought all this into the "open" if he had not it would still now be covered up no doubt, so how can people accuse him of not partaking in the enquiry when he has in my mind quite clearly explained why he has not.Yes he might be outspoken sometimes but if I had been locked up a couple of times & persecuted as he has I would find it difficult myself to be even tempered.As to not "listening" to him for an hour I would far rather that than some of the unevidenced drivel that is written on this & other blogs.

Voice, if you're not in a position to repost the post, take your time. It will be worth the wait for all us dedicated blog readers to know there are no risks imposed on yourselves or the victim concerned.

Such a shame your blog posting"Public to Discover How Much 'openness' £50k can Buy?"was removed, even if only temporarily.

There was some great work and revelations in the comment section. We look forward to it's return when you have finished whatever in necessary

I had a worrying thought sparked by reading this posting, "Jersey Child Abuse Inquiry Report to be Published July 3rd 2017."

Isn't this at least the 3rd delay to the report? The CoI's behaviour fills few with confidence. From the missing witnesses, to the banning of unaccredited/independent media, to the multiple identities bestowed on perpetrators, to the arrogant dismissal of enquiries and questions, to the wilfully unfit website, to the kowtow redaction of swathes of evidence only to avoid embarrassment of the Law Offices or identification of some of the structural and constitutional causes of the child abuse disaster.

My fear is that there will be another "unavoidable" delay to make the report miss the states debates until after the summer break.

Still no report and it is a decade since Mr Syvret was sacked as Health Minister for investigating and announcing that Jersey's child care system was unfit and riddled with abuse.

Yes we can do maths .....so long as it is not meaningless maths :-)(Ahhhh...... is the "Two Line Troll" back?)btw. Stuart Syvret is not the only person missing from the unfit CoI. Those who did choose to sign away their rights in accordance with the dodge protocols; frankly were given "'Hobson's choice". Nor do we know the satisfaction level of those who did take part.

We can do meaningless maths too! The population of Jersey is 100,000+ so the "400 witnesses" represent a sole viewpoint of 0.4%. Equally meaningless!

You may wish to spout flawed maths in your attempt to make a point, but this is not about manipulating numbers. It is about peoples' rights, -about basics of the law, -about finding the whole truth -about protecting future generations of children. - Have these issues have ever featured in your mind or your comments?

"btw. Stuart Syvret is not the only person missing from the unfit CoI. Those who did choose to sign away their rights in accordance with the dodge protocols; frankly were given "'Hobson's choice"."

I had never thought of it this way, but maybe former Chief Executive Mike Pollard shared exactly the same reservations as Stuart Syvret did about signing away his rights, if he appeared before the inquiry.

You couldn't find two more diametrically opposed individuals, but maybe they have common cause in refusing to sign up to protocols that they believe deny them their rights? It's possible, I guess.

Until the inquiry clarifies the reasons why the former Chief Executive did not give evidence, we're none the wiser. We know why Syvret did not give evidence.

The £26,000,000 inquiry should however tell us why Mr Pollard never gave evidence.

The comment at 13:57 constitutes the words of an idiot. And I'm confident most readers of this site know which idiot.

Look, if a person saw an event, or a set of occurrences, or had direct, personal knowledge of a process - such as, for example, a conspiracy of some kind - then that person is a witness to those events - is a bearer of relevant knowledge.

The person in question does not - magically - "become" a witness to those events only once they have given their testimony to some kind of inquisitorial process.

A person either witnessed events - or they didn't.

If they didn't - then they're not a witness.

If they did - then they're a witness.

If a person is a witness - if they have relevant knowledge - then they are either a witness whose evidence and testimony was obtained - or - they are a witness whose evidence and testimony was not obtained.

Under no rational circumstances does a person possessed of relevant knowledge cease to be a witness.

I am a witness - one of the most central - direct - profound - witnesses imaginable - to the key events in the Jersey government child-abuse cover-up scandal.

I also happen to be a witness whose evidence and testimony was NOT obtained by this supposed "public-inquiry" - because the CoI chose to constructively exclude me by breaching the ECHR - and ignoring the Salmon Principles - by trying to unlawfully impose human-rights-denying "conditions" upon my pure right to effective legal representation.

A manifestly corrupt and disgusting decision - which we know Eversheds and the CoI are ashamed of - because of their decision to begin the "official" history of the CoI only from the 15th May 2014 - instead of the 14th May 2014, the date of their Panel-Ruling to unlawfully deny me unconditional legal representation.

And if anyone doubts I am a witness to the events, acts, and omissions of staggering corruption behind the Jersey child-abuse cover-up - don't take my word for it.

Just ask the CoI.

They acknowledged to me - in writing - in response to my original - pro-active -communication to them - that I was indeed a core witness.

What a pity, then, for Jersey's many child-abuse victims that Eversheds and the CoI attached greater importance to denying my human rights and preventing me from access to unconditional legal representation - than they did to obtaining my testimony on behalf of those victims as an acknowledged core witness.

On Wednesday last, I wrote to you following the dismissal of Senator Stuart Syvret as the Minister for Health and Social Services, which became effective the previous day.The Jersey Evening Post reported the dismissal and included in that report was the following statement:“Members backed Chief Minister Frank Walker’s move by a 35 to 15 margin, effectively deciding that his attacks on his own staff, other civil servants and politicians over the recent rows have been unjustified”.

In this letter to you I wish to focus on the ‘unjustifiable attacks’. I do know that the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey are currently preparing to make a rounded, comprehensive and positive statement about the competence and professionalism of those members of our staff (and staff working in other States Departments and agencies). They will, of course, be sending these resolute messages to the general public of the Island and I expect those powerful messages to be released next week.It is for me though, to send powerful messages to all of you who work in the Health and Social Services Department.

A letter to all our staff is important because speaking to some of those working in Child Protection Services and our Children’s Services more generally, advised me that there has been a great deal of support for them from their colleagues within the Department, who know them and who have trusted them in the past. However, they also tell me that they feel some of our staff in other sectors are not quite sure what has been going on and that they have detected some discomfort when meetings, however informally, have taken place. It is right, therefore, that I fundamentally and categorically make the position clear as far as Child Protection and Children’s Services staff are concerned.

In early August I asked Senator Stuart Syvret, the Minister for Health and Social Services, two fundamental and basic questions which go to the heart of this matter. These questions are as follows:‘Do you know of any child who is not receiving a competent service from our Department?’‘Do you have information which you are withholding which, if given to me, would allow me to make the lives of a child or children better?’Senator Stuart Syvret answered both these questions by saying, clearly, ‘no’.You will also be aware that Senator Stuart Syvret, as Minister, invited people to come forward to him with details of any incident of child abuse or any untoward incident of this nature. As a consequence of his call, he asked me to investigate two alleged incidents. The first concerns the circumstances surrounding the departure of a member of staff. Following my investigation into this matter, the Senator accepted that this had been handled correctly. The second concerns alleged incidents which occurred in the mid -1980s, which of course is over 20 years ago.

Right up to and including the debate last Tuesday, I have been expecting the Senator to give me information about unresolved issues of child abuse or any untoward incident of this nature, but I have received none. The obvious, positive and unequivocal conclusion that we can all draw from this evidence is that the Child Protection and Children’s Services have no case to answer. The truth is – as if we did not know it – that these are highly respected, caring professionals who work in one of the most high risk sectors of public service.

In addition to the investigations (referred to above) which Senator Syvret asked me to investigate, you will appreciate also that the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive of the States of Jersey have also asked me to investigate some allegations which were brought to their attention. What I expected to find in undertaking all of this work was that the vast majority of such allegations were groundless and could be easily rebutted. To be perfectly honest though, I did expect – because this is the way that the world usually turns – to find that one or two instances had not been handled as well as they could have been. What I actually found, without exception, was that every instance and every matter I looked into had been dealt with to the highest possible standard. Never before in my 30 years of practice have I found a service that has got it so right, so well and so often to such a high standard.

I trust, therefore, that this letter has put beyond any scintilla of a doubt that the Child Protection and Children’s Services operate to a very high standard and have an unblemished record. I will not take kindly to anyone who seeks to make mischief with these hard working staff on these matters.

A great deal will have to be done to rebuild confidence in these services and a number of meetings will be taking place over the next few days. Some of these will involve the Chief Minister and the Chief Executive to the States of Jersey – two very senior people who maintain close contact with me, at least on a daily basis. I do know that of all the complex and important issues on their respective agendas at the moment, the matter of repairing the damage to morale within these services is predominant.

Stuart, if you read the context of 'the idiot' at 13.57 that statement was rebutting the 'fake statistics' that you were a miniscule element of the CoI percentage of witnesses. I would agree with 13.57 you were NOT a CoI witness . You responded as if they meant a witness to criminal activities , clearly in that context you were.

Putting it into another context Stuart was the only person out of 400 witnesses to refuse to give evidence which was miniscule. I would give this more thought had others shared the same stance as Stuart but none have, so on this occasion he is a One Man 'No-Show'.

Colin. It is possible to be mistaken but I see 13.57 as a typical troll "2-liner", probably posted by one of the usual suspects also at 11:25 But let's not waste time being side-tracked by the inconsequential.

07:05 asks "Sam Mezec has a Degree in Law. VFC can you ask him for his opinion on all these legal claims against the COI?"

I would very much like to know the considered opinion of "Mr Short-pants-&-long-hair."

Fortunately while we are waiting we can jigsaw together the published opinions of the much more experienced Advocate Sinel and former Deputy Daniel Wimberley who was instrumental in achieving the CoI and central to achieving fir for purpose ToR's

Above@29 April 2017 at 13:08 sub-comment@00:57http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/04/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry-report-to-be.html?showComment=1494374276683#c8644132979986437021

With echoes of Napier (where the embarrassing ToR literally fall off the page) The CoI appears to have ignored certain of it's own ToR's and hence it's legislative purpose and the will of The States.

Daniel10 May 2017 at 00:57 SAYS:"The whole question about what is or is not within the Terms of Reference was the subject of my first two letters to the COI - now helpfully disappeared from the website. Their reply to my first letter was a disgrace, and I told them so. There was no formal reply to the second.

However, it is plain that the matters mentioned above ARE within the Terms of Reference.

rule of law - absence of in Jersey.

TOR 4 covers this: "Examine the political and societal environment during the period under review and its effect on the oversight of children’s homes, fostering services and other establishments run by the States, on the reporting or non-reporting of abuse within or outside such organisations, on the response to those reports of abuse by all agencies and by the public, on the eventual police and any other investigations, and on the eventual outcomes."

The absence of the Rule of Law, if it exists, sould obviously impact on all these aspects.

TOR 9 says

"Review the actions of . . . " sorry I cannot copy the TOR from the COI website any more. But here is the address:

structural problems like for instance the lack of an independent prosecution function, and the evident conflict of interest with the AG being Prosecutor and the States Legal Advisor also fall within these two TOR.

There was a lengthy battle over the TOR and these two got through. For full details of where the TOR as approved by the States were still faulty see my first letter about them to the COI."

If the CoI has erased or hidden Daniel Wimberley's letters, they are still available here:http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/p/jersey-child-abuse-inquiry.html

Are people not allowed to have a view on this without being called a Troll?Being called a Troll is like people are trying to gag you.There are many good points that can be answered without lowering it to name calling so much.

Oh good, you and your like are not Paedo Trolls @10:30 -That is such a relief

There is an opportunity for you guy(s) to add weight to your claim by adequately answering the points raised in "Pro Bono's" contribution pasted below:

"[REF: Why should any former Senator of the States be given special treatment when its a public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry? We didn't hear others making up this tosh.]

Because it is not 'special treatment'.

It's the rule of law.

All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

He has that absolute right in law.

But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires 'protocols'. "

But the poster never even starts to adequately answer this (or others)and never will .....

Still. I'm so glad that none of the two liners on here are the work of a pointless troll :-)

A) "Can we put this into numbers. Stuart Syvret was 1 person out of some 400 witnesses. So he represents a sole viewpoint of 0.25%." [answered]

B) "Putting it into another context Stuart was the only person out of 400 witnesses to refuse to give evidence which was miniscule. I would give this more thought had others shared the same stance as Stuart but none have, so on this occasion he is a One Man 'No-Show'." [not answered because it is a "repeater" of the PR sh1t of A.]

It is the typical two line guff that Jersey's child protection blogs are constantly exposed to in the hope that endless repetition will make it true.This thread is littered with these two liners, so whatever it nay be it is clearly NOT gagged (unlike the ex health minister?)

Those who actually engage or ask honest questions are not trolls.

If you troll a child protection site, you qualify as a "paedo troll" imo

Sweeping all these attendance of the Care Inquiry debates aside, I'd love to know what Stuart Syvret's Plan B is? The Report in July will have World Wide Publicity and to match that with anything different sounds impossible.

I see that this post as descended in to the six hundredth re-run of should Stuart Syvret have been a witness debate. This argument is irrelevant now. When honest comments referring to the recent exposure by blog commentators of how not just names or lines. But around three dozen paragraphs of evidence have been redacted. You have to ask what is the point. We may as well just await the report and see what happens. Confidence can hardly be high can it?

Unfortunately what you think is of little relevance until you or (or 9.34 LOL) adequately answers the rather more erudite contribution by "Pro Bono" which follows *again*:

"[REF: Why should any former Senator of the States be given special treatment when its a public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry? We didn't hear others making up this tosh.]

Because it is not 'special treatment'.

It's the rule of law.

All people are entitled to the protections of the ECHR. For example, Article 6, the right to a fair hearing.

And all public-inquiries in the British Isles should adhere to the Salmon Principles. Certainly, in respect of the latter, the very very expensive tax payer funded lawyers provided to the States of Jersey Police Force made that very plea to the COI. They cited the Salmon Principles. And the COI agreed with them and gave in to that demand.

But yet in the case of Stuart Syvret - with zero funded legal representation - made the same point when applying for legal aid, the COI attempted to wholly subvert the very purpose of getting legal representation in the first place, by trying to coerce Syvret into signing away all his human rights first, before they'd consider giving him any legal representation!

You might like to think the settled rule of law is "tosh". Other's cannot be compelled to share your view. You don't like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his rights to the protections of the Salmon Principles, you might not like the fact Syvret chose to stand by his absolute Rights as guaranteed in the ECHR. Well, that's just tough. Tough, you hear? It's called the rule of law.

Syvret has those legal rights, and he chose not to surrender them.

He has that absolute right in law.

But I'm glad the commenter cites the importance of the "public duty to give evidence to a public Inquiry". Yes, when we're considering the importance of a statutory public inquiry, fully possessed of all of the quasi judicial powers needed to ensure all relevant evidence & testimony is obtained, we have to ask why the COI has failed its public duty, to use its power of subpoena to bring before it around a couple of dozen very, very obvious key witnesses (of which Stuart Syvret is merely one) and has in stead left vast lacunae in the work of the public inquiry, and thus failed to fulfill its TORs and legislative purpose?

You know, for close observers of this farce from outside of Jersey (and outside of the UK for that matter) it's simply astonishing, that a statutory public inquiry into something so important as decades of child-abuse cover-up should have attempted to impose obviously unlawful a priori "conditions" upon the man who first publicly exposed that child-abuse cover-up in July 2007.

Obviously, within the lawless fairy-land jurisdiction that is Jersey, your local mob can and always will get away with whatever it pleases. For example, running a "public inquiry" from the building of a fatally conflicted law firm, The Ogier Group, and so by intimidating a number of witnesses away from engagement at the very beginning. But Eversheds? But France Oldham? Back in London? Their reputations are trashed.

And its so interesting, in a not good way, that this COI has so embarrassingly decided its "history" begins on the 15th May 2014, which is the earliest date Panel Rulings appear in its 'Key Documents' - rather than on the 14th May, when the COI made the legally indefensible Panel-Ruling to constructively-exclude Stuart Syvret by breaching the Salmon Principles, and his Article 6 Rights in refusing to give him legal representation funding unless he signed up to their ultra vires 'protocols'. "

Unfortunately until you or 9:34 ;-) adequately answer those points -the endless repetition of your guff does rather look like establishment trolling.

Nurse M and Trolls, it is boring.People on here are hoping the Care Inquiry Report will do something to help Survivors move on from the past and Children get the protection they deserve in the future.Who is the real Troll on here? The person who only wants this Inquiry to fail or the people who want it to work? Stuart Syvret's stance means nothing to this Report because its always been his own personal opinion and it is time to stop raking over it again and again. He chose not to be a part of it so lets forget about him now.

I wish we'd get away from this subject and the accusations of trolling whenever Stuart Syvret's position is questioned, which has been going on since the Inquiry started.This Report means so much to a lot of Survivors and it's time to stop talking about issues that will have no relevance on 3rd July.

Actually, the constructive exclusion of admitted core witnesses will be and will continue to be of the deepest relevance to abuse survivors like me no matter when the COI report is published. It is unavoidably going to be a flawed document because vital witnesses like Stuart, who listened to me, believed me and helped me, have been wrongly threatened and intimidated from giving evidence. And I really wish VFC you'd stop printing this sad and disgusting individuals' boring repetitive hate campaign against Stuart. Your blog is starting to give the impression its happy for the anti-Stuart fool to give the impression he speaks for survivors when he dosen't. I know a number of survivors in addition to myself, and not one of us has a word of criticism against Stuart. I really wish you'd stop allowing the boring repetitive attack on Stuart.

Stuart explained in a comment further back why he ended up not giving evidence, and its a perfectly good and right explanation, worth repeating here. Stuart explained this,

'The comment at 13:57 constitutes the words of an idiot. And I'm confident most readers of this site know which idiot.

Look, if a person saw an event, or a set of occurrences, or had direct, personal knowledge of a process - such as, for example, a conspiracy of some kind - then that person is a witness to those events - is a bearer of relevant knowledge.

The person in question does not - magically - "become" a witness to those events only once they have given their testimony to some kind of inquisitorial process.

A person either witnessed events - or they didn't.

If they didn't - then they're not a witness.

If they did - then they're a witness.

If a person is a witness - if they have relevant knowledge - then they are either a witness whose evidence and testimony was obtained - or - they are a witness whose evidence and testimony was not obtained.

Under no rational circumstances does a person possessed of relevant knowledge cease to be a witness.

I am a witness - one of the most central - direct - profound - witnesses imaginable - to the key events in the Jersey government child-abuse cover-up scandal.

I also happen to be a witness whose evidence and testimony was NOT obtained by this supposed "public-inquiry" - because the CoI chose to constructively exclude me by breaching the ECHR - and ignoring the Salmon Principles - by trying to unlawfully impose human-rights-denying "conditions" upon my pure right to effective legal representation.

A manifestly corrupt and disgusting decision - which we know Eversheds and the CoI are ashamed of - because of their decision to begin the "official" history of the CoI only from the 15th May 2014 - instead of the 14th May 2014, the date of their Panel-Ruling to unlawfully deny me unconditional legal representation.

And if anyone doubts I am a witness to the events, acts, and omissions of staggering corruption behind the Jersey child-abuse cover-up - don't take my word for it.

Just ask the CoI.

They acknowledged to me - in writing - in response to my original - pro-active -communication to them - that I was indeed a core witness.

What a pity, then, for Jersey's many child-abuse victims that Eversheds and the CoI attached greater importance to denying my human rights and preventing me from access to unconditional legal representation - than they did to obtaining my testimony on behalf of those victims as an acknowledged core witness.'

Why can't you just walk away?All these re-runs of how it is right not to give evidence is cumbersome coupled with the same acidic attacks against legal Firms.Your arguments are flawed as soon as you attack people who are hopeful the Report will deliver something and if you have regrets not giving evidence then you only have yourself to blame.

@20.02- states@19.28's arguments are flawed (quote) "as soon as you attack people who are hopeful the Report will deliver something."

There is no 'attack' in @19.28's argument. @19.28 is simply saying there are some survivors who support Stuart.

People are not homogenous.Some survivors have confidence in the COI- some don't- some may be unsure. Some survivors support Stuart, some may not. Some probably don't know enough about him to form a judgement.

You are an anti-Syvret person. Fine. Keep that view. Keep your mind closed, keep thinking the authorities are right and Stuart is a ****, keep thinking that the rule of law is just 3 words strung together. Keep thinking whatever you like but please, please note one very basic fact- not everyone thinks like you or agrees with you. To me, your relentless attacks on Syvret are simply attempted deflection from this blog which was/ is doing a fantastic forensic job on the COI. In the latest, now currently unavailable post, RL and Polo made excellent detailed contributions. As did anon. highlighting the COI flaw of giving 2 witnesses the same title of Mr. K. These are useful contributions to the debate.

I hope that VFC are able to interview some Survivors even if anonymously once the Care Inquiry Report is released to see if they are satisfied with it.It is not up to people who never gave evidence to tell us whether its going to be good enough or ultra vires or whatever weary rubbish we've heard a 1,000 times already.At the end of the day it is the Survivors who can only decide on whether the Report delivers so it is time to wait and see.

Largely true. Apart from those former policeofficers and politicians who championed the survivors. They are best placed to tell us if anything coming out of the report will help put and end to the Jersey way of things which caused all the problems.

Well VFC as you've decided to become more and more like the Filthy Rag troll zoo can I ask you to do a posting before the COI publishes its report, in which you state clearly what you will regard as a 'success', and what you'd regard as a 'failure', in that report?

As a survivor I have my clear views, and those views are based on requirements that will deliver the basic rule of law to Jersey. Personally, I'll condemn the COI if it seek anything less. But what does VFC think?

Let's know that, in fact, let's know that from every vocal party, before the report is published. It will be so so easy for people to feign 'satisfaction' if they've never stated beforehand their requirements.

Please don't attack VFC about this blog by comparing it to the Rag. Stay calm. This blog is a beacon of light and I am so glad we have it, thanks to VFC of course. I think the deletion of the latest post has been unfortunate as people return to comment on this one and it's in a mess. That post was an excellent, forensic style thread that flowed brilliantly and I thought VFC was doing an excellent job as editor on it. It's a regret that the redacted version won't appear the same. There is a problem with this blog format when comments are numerous and different topics expand, not just at the bottom, but at different levels. When it gets like this, perhaps a fresh page for a couple of days would help? It's only a suggestion to VFC.Also, I never thought about this before but I just made a bungle- I didn't refresh the page before I posted at @21.35. So I never read the excellent comment @20.18 and yet my comment appears above that one. If I had re-freshed, I'd have probably added to that comment, rather than produce my Janet and John level answer to the anti-Syvret person. I'm not aware of making this refresh error before but this is hardly VFC's fault.

But I totally agree with you(@ 21.34) about the rule of law. Also your suggestion about stating 'requirements' before the publication is a great idea. For me a satisfactory result has to be the rule of law. Then naturally, perpetrators prosecuted. I'd also like to see victims properly compensated without the gagging clause please. Incidentally, how many file on the AG-now- Bailiff's desk didn't see the courts? Why was it only the small fry who got prosecuted? So ironic that the Bailiff's speech was about the Jersey Way as he epitomises it's popular meaning.

Format of blog commentsI have also had a problem, missing comments when they are indented replies to other comments, as they don't appear at the end of the thread. The only benefit of this template is that, when strictly observed, sub threads make for sensible thematic conversations.

The alternative approach, where every new comment is inserted at the end of the main thread is easier to follow but it can get very confusing with lots of anonymous comments and commenters failing to reference the earlier comment they are addressing. Just for the avoidance of doubt I do understand the need for anonymity in the current Jersey context.

One way of coping with indented comments would be to sign up for notifications, but this is cumbersome and on occasion can fill up your mailbox.

What do I want from the COI?That's a hard one. It is difficult to specify what I want to see in the report itself, other than the complete picture with no issues avoided or softened. That will have to address the structural faults in the Jersey justice system which have allowed systematic cover up over the years. Otherwise very little will change and any reforms adopted will likely be diluted and circumvented over time.

So my ambition for Jersey is a qualitative one. Restoration (or establishment?) of the rule of law and a caring administration for Jersey's citizens. This will only be capable of being judged over time and is a wider issue than the Inquiry alone.

The Inquiry will, hopefully, be some help in this, though its behaviour to date suggests to me that its ultimate value will be in the evidence collected and published, assuming this remains freely available.

I am not going to get into a long discussion on Stuart Syvret here. That would merit a separate post, at least. I would just comment, however, that it is this essential long term perpsctive that he keeps to the fore as without fundamental reform of the whole system, any progress is likely to be limited and ultimately short term.

This is not to take from the conscientious decision taken by many to put their trust in the Inquiry and contribute, often at great personal cost. I hope the result will turn out positive for Jersey.

22.32 Anonymous. I endorse your point about the Bailiff abusing his position to repeat tripe about reclaiming the Jersey way as something good and wholesome. I made this very point relating to the inappropriateness of using a Liberation day platform for this propaganda. For reasons I can't imagine I don't think it was ever published. Possibly because I also highlighted the deep irony of this happening soon after the thread and post about the 30 paragraphs of evidence being redacted vanished. Reclaiming the Jersey way may take some considerable time?

Rather than bang out this repetitive pro-anti Syvret debate, please, let's be collectively constructive from now on. I agree with @21.34 who makes a seriously good point about stating 'satisfactory requirements' needed before the report is published. It's crucial the COI and the States of Jersey are given a clear understanding of what's being judged. Without presenting these requirements, the States and COI will just be hoping the whole thing goes away and the public won't have much of a clue if the COI has failed in it's job or not. Here's an idea- we, on VFC or perhaps a site set up for this purpose, collectively form a list of basic requirements that survivors and the public expect from the COI report. In effect, we set a bench mark that won't go away. The list could be sub-dived as bare 'minimum', 'preferred' and 'ideal' requirements or just listed and grouped into key areas. The format will shape with contributions, it need not be long but it should be succinct and clear. Press release it. Get it out there. Presenting it to the COI prior to the report release date is essential. July 1st gives the COI 2 days for it to sink in and we will soon know if the COI acknowledges it or not. If they ignore it, at least quality media could pose relevant questions from this list to those culpable. It's spoon feeding. Over the quiet summer months, we should then grade each entry entry according to 'satisfactory' or 'unsatisfactory' , explaining why this grade was reached, together with siting the relevant documents that will be needed to back this up. Then, 2 or 3 months later, stick the whole thing into a virtual magazine, press release it, send a copy to the COI for comment, and leave it permanently up for the record. Presented in an easy, accessible format, the results would be helpful to those who are turned off by the volume of material, while journalists and academics would appreciate that significant evidence gathering work is already done for them. Items classified as 'unsatisfactory' would then form the core areas for future investigation and any inquiry into the COI. Such a task would make it harder for this terrible episode of Jersey history to go away. Ideally the Jersey Care Leavers would present this.

Suspension of Bailiff William Bailhache as a nuetral act would be a start. Similarly so with the suspension of Michael Birt from presiding over any court. As for the no longer active but now Foreign minister Philip Bailhache he too should be suspended as a nuetral act by his Chief Minister. The exposures on the way our Crown Officers ignore q whole raft of issues such as recusal of both judges and jurats, court procedures such as the allowance of individuals to have evidence heard in a case, selective prosecutions, total abuse of so called judge made law application, failure to act on exposed perjury, disciplining commisioners and jurats for failures, the blunt refusal to prosecute certain abusers highlighted by the former Head of Education and so forth. It can't just be ignored again. Can it? The UK must finally intervene in the circus of horrors.

Comment @ 12 May @ 15:38Good points, but other very important and very much related and yet to be explained points are the (could be), illegal suspension of Jersey's good Chief Of Police Graham Power and the sacking of our very talented Health and Social Services Minister Stuart Syvret....Very much looking forward to 3rd of July!?

It was, very constructively, suggested above, that debate here should focus on what are our requirements of the CoI report? Let me suggest just a few questions and observations:

How many Jersey abuse survivors have been facilitated and enabled to learn and understand how the "law" failed them?

I'm looking at these "processes" and trying to see where the resources and efforts have been targeted and spent on enabling the vulnerable to recognise and understand how the system failed them, abused them?

Where has the process of the CoI developed, explained and exemplified a clear and lasting lesson to the powerless - as to how they should not be - should never be - powerless? How "The Law" is supposed to be there to protect the vulnerable - protect them from the get-go - without any need for subsequent "inquiries"?

I'm afraid - I see no sign of that.

Anywhere.

In any part of the process of the conduct of the CoI.

On the contrary.

I see the stark opposite:

A "public-body" which feels at liberty to act ultra vires by ignoring Part e of its legislative purpose - so immediately further disempowering the already powerless - preventing their voice from playing its proper role in shaping the investigative process.

A "public-body" which feels at liberty to intimidate and tamper with vital core witnesses whose testimony would have been 100% on the side of the survivors.

So, when the dust settles - how much of a lasting civil-society lesson will have been learned, absorbed, and remembered by Jersey's vulnerable? To the lasting protection of present and future vulnerable?

If any readers have rational, constructive, answers to those thoughts, I'm very willing to consider them.

I'd very much like to be wrong.

Sadly, all I see right now as a result of this CoI is a situation which is - actually - worse; a CoI which has - essentially - given an "official-stamp-of-approval" to the corrupt administrative habits of the past - and has facilitated a situation in which bent judges are - de facto - endorsed in their past corruption - a situation in which all of Jersey's gangster MSM sit back in deafening silence whilst the CoI singularly disgraces itself amongst all modern British administrative history by agreeing to have as core evidence co-ordinators THE expressly conflicted senior civil-servants from within the culpable Health & Social Services Department - a CoI which failed - astoundingly - FAILED - to ask so much as one - single - solitary - question - to THE two public officials most responsible for the Maguire/Blanch Pierre cover-up, Philip and William Bailhache,in connection with those monstrous crimes - a CoI which heralds a new year - 2017 - in which the States of Jersey Police Force are now so corruptly contemptuous of investigating child-abuse they - illegally - refuse to take statements of criminal-complaint unless permitted to by the Law-Officers Department - a CoI whose Chair has secret meetings with conflicted parties such as the data protection commissioner - a CoI which allows itself to be used as a fake £12 million "front" to get additional money to the corruptly conflicted States of Jersey Departments - a CoI which - demonstrating horrifying and despicable contempt upon Jersey's abuse survivors - has failed to call at least two-dozen overt, stark, obvious witnesses - a CoI which as sat there - in self-damning silence - whilst Council to the CoI lied - straight-up lied - and falsely claimed they didnt have the power to subpoena.

Sure.

There are lessons for Jersey's vulnerable, powerless and unresourced - to be taken from Jersey's so-called "public-inquiry".

Serious question, can anyone find an alternative location for the BBC Panorama program Island of Secrets?

It used to be here,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO4IME4g1kw

But all we get now, just recently, "strangely enough", given imminente publication of the Jersey COI report is a message saying 'This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it on copyright grounds'.

This is obviously a Political and spindoctor act by the BBC, as hundreds of BBC programs, far more lucrative programs, things like David Attenborough nature programs, are there to be seen on YouTube.

So why has this one, mysteriously, been blocked?

This is the BBC disgracing itself again. Trying to rewrite history.

And trying eliminate and erase the testimony of some of local heroic survivors - like Dannie Jarman who was just brilliant and vital in this program. Seeing her gave so much strength to me to speak to the police too.

But now poor Dannie's dead. And the BBC have decided to erase the memory of what that poor girl went through - and how she fought for us.

Please, can someone get that Panorama back for us? It must be somewhere?

The Beeb might well, from a strictly legalistic viewpoint, have a "colourable claim" against YT over the publication of their copyrighted programme. But what’s their excuse for taking it off their OWN web page, over which they have ALL the rights?

I too can only find no. 3 of 3. I wonder if anyone's saved the whole thing and can re-post it on you-tube please? Interesting to hear then Chief Minister Frank Walker replying to the interviewer's question- "You will name names, even if people can't be prosecuted?" Walker replies, "we will." Does anyone know if this is still guaranteed? It surely constitutes a basic 'requirement' for the COI.

Sorry to ask RL @00.51 but I'm puzzled as to what or who you are referring to by 'YT' in that comment? Perhaps Stuart Syvret has a good explanation as to why this programme has suddenly vanished. I'm assuming it's a relatively recent development. I suspect it's for legal reasons but which aspect? Seems very odd. Well done to whoever discovered this and drew it to VFC attention.

I imagine that "YT" would be "YouTube" It is unlikely that a real legal reason would emerge now. More likely that the "state broadcaster" has pulled it to protect the state (or rather the shysters who would otherwise be exposed)Jersey is not only a microcosm, but also a "peculiar possession of the crown", where good governance is ultimately the responsibility of the UK. The continuing Jersey non-prosecution and cover up exposes the UK shysters and even the crown.

How high does it go?

e.g. Was Ted Heath totally asexual or did he have a liking for little boys?

This is not the only video the BBC has removed from Youtube. the video from THIS POSTING has also been removed. The video proved that the BBC was filming Bergerac while vulnerable children were still resident at HDLG (Aviemore).

It does look worryingly like a concerted effort by the B-savile Broadcasting Corporation to get all it's ducks in a row for the major PR event scheduled for 3rd July 2017

In addition to it's Jersey non-reporting, the BBC has displayed some rather "odd" behaviour like flooding the CoI media room with staff, all coordinated to get the "unaccredited media" banned from CoI media room.

I doubt the media room had ever been full before or since. Maybe some real journalists will attend on 3rd July.

I have just watched Chief Minister Ian Gorst's speech to members of the business community and i have to say if his presentation and body language is what will be presented to the worlds media when the CoI report comes out, well it will not be good that is for sure. Paxman toasted Frank Walker, what someone like him will do to our Chief Minister simply is not a pleasant thought. There were more 'umms' and 'ahhs'than I could count, no wonder Gorst wants Ozouf back in to write his speeches and tell him what to do. Get rid of Ministerial Government and bring back the Committee system before any more hard earned taxpayer millions is squandered.

FYI- The episode titled 'Report on Jersey child protection', broadcast on 14.11.08 on Radio 4's Today programme is also unavailable. 'This content doesn't seem to be working' is. written across the audio link. I've tried on 2 separate devices regularly refreshing but still no joy. The blurb accompanying the programme says-

A report commissioned by the Jersey government finds that children in Jersey have less protection than children who live in the rest of the UK. Andrew Nielsen, the head of policy at the Howard League for Penal Reform, explains the findings of the report.

That classic Newsnight episode of 25.02.08 is also not available from the BBC Newsnight archive with the words- 'Sorry, this episode is not currently available.' To be 'fair' on the BBC, I also tried several other episodes broadcast in 2008 and they all contain the same message so it may be a policy to take older archived programmes off line. I'll keep digging when I get the chance.

Interestingly, back to the BBC Panorama archive, the episode 'Island of Secrets' (31.03.08) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b009pgww , has the wording - 'Sorry, this episode is not currently available'- the same wording found on other archived Panorama episodes of that era. So I went to a link I had to the programme where the wording is- 'This video contains content from BBC Worldwide, who has blocked it on copyright grounds'. From memory, this was a link to a full episode but it may have been to a 'part 1 of 2' for example. Thankfully a YT subscriber- The Medomsley Monsters- downloaded it and presumably did so in 3 parts. However, only part 3 of 3 (9 minutes of a 40 minute programme) is still available, here- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BETO8lVw4oQGetting in touch with Medomsley could ascertain if and where the other 2 parts have gone and if they can be retrieved.

3.3 Deputy S.Y. Mézec of the Chief Minister regarding measures to ensure the evidence received by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry would remain publicly accessible and complete: [1(273)]

What measures, if any, will the Chief Minister be taking to ensure that in the aftermath of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry publishing its report, the evidence it received remains publicly accessible and complete?

Senator I.J. Gorst (The Chief Minister):

The information created by the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry is of significant and lasting interest and it is crucial that it is archived to ensure future access. The inquiry has already confirmed that the evidence received will not be destroyed and that arrangements for securing that data are under active consideration. As the official repository of public records, the Jersey Archive is the appropriate place for the records to be stored.

3.3.1 Deputy S.Y. Mézec:

The Chief Minister will be aware that a former politician has raised concerns on this issue. Would the Chief Minister agree that, in advance of the report being published, it would perhaps be a good idea to review the accessibility of this information, given that the website that much of this information is held on is not particularly user friendly? It will, obviously, be in the public interest, when the report comes out, for all of it to be able to be accessed as easily as possible and that there is room for improvement on that?

Senator I.J. Gorst:

I do not know about the last comment about whether there is room for improvement. The Deputy makes a very good point. It is important that all the evidence that has been provided and is currently in the public domain remains so at the post-publication point. I know that officers across departments, together with the archive, are considering how in future it will be best archived, but I will relay back to them the Deputy’s point about it remaining public in the immediate post-publication period.